About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
. thank you for staying with us for this hour. the acting director of the cia met for more than an hour with senators john mccain and lindsey graham along with the u.n. ambassador susan rice. the three senators emerged from the meeting saying they were honored by the fact that the cia director would meet with them, just three random senators and not in some official capacity testifying before committee on the hill. they appreciated the fact that the administration and the intelligence community was going to such lengths to e swaj their concerns to personally answer their questions about the libya attack in a closed-door meeting with the cia director himself, even though these are just three random senators. the senators said their questions were answered as reasonably could be expected and they were willing to consider the president's nominee for secretary of state. they were tlog hear out those nominations fairly and without prejudice. yeah right. that's not the way it went. here's actually what happened after that meeting today. >> we're not going to consider this nomination until we
and close friend simply told the truth as she was permitted to tell it, what the cia gave her to say and no more. for that he charges susan rice, in the words of the new york post, being fried. political fight fans on the tabloids relish this extreme combat what should be a good person's judgment? that's my question tonight. is susan rice now a surrogate for the president, someone to take the punishment when others above her pay grade should be answering the questions, or is she accountable for going on national television knowing she can't tell the whole truth because it's classified? let's begin with senator susan collins, republican of maine. i guess it's the toughest question in the world, senator, and that is, do you believe that susan rice, the u.n. ambassador, knowingly covered up a breach of national security? >> well, let me say this, chris, our purpose is to understand the security failure in benghazi. what the administration told the american public about it. and how we can learn lessons to keep our personnel safer in the future. so that's my interest and goal in this situ
're even more concerned, centers around the information that the cia had just after the attack about possible involvement in the benghazi attack that killed ambassador chris stevens and those three other americans. now, ambassador rice did not make reference to this information in her talk show appearances. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> b
rice was thrown under the bus and they all knew she didn't have the information from the cia. then i thought you would have to feel sorry for her. since yesterday talking to some of those to whom she talked i'm convinced in my mind that she is part of the coverup, she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. but your point is very good. i could not support her in the secretary of state if she is nominated. bill: give me a reason why. >> she is on the wrong side of the membership of the u.n. palestinian authority. she is on the opposite side of where i am. she has kept on funding you necessary cowhich is in violation of instructions given to her through law. she is on the opposite side of every issue that i am. for that reason i would have opposed her anyway. bill: it appears to me and many others when we listen to folks like yourself talk that this issue is much bigger than susan rice. let me drill down on one area here. because yesterday the cia acting director at 10:00 a.m. apparently blamed the fbi for changing the language and the guidance and the talking poin
the story, ambassador rice has been under really intense scrutiny for publicly repeating cia talking points that the attack that killed four americans in benghazi, back on september 11th, have been connected to protests against an anti-muslim video. diplomatic e-mails showed within a matter of hour of that attack the assault was linked to terrorists. i with aant to bring in colin l. welcome. we saw senator collins speak on the hill, she was one of several, senator coburn met with her today as well. she actually went back to the bombing in africa and the then assistant secretary of state for african affairs, you know, prior job. take a listen. >> i'm also very troubled by the fact that we seem not to have learned from the 1998 bombings of two of our embassies in africa, at the time when ambassador rice was the assistant secretary for african affairs. >> senator talking about the attacks on both tanzania and kenya, killed 224 people, injured another 4500. and, senator went on to say both cases ambassador begged for additional security. fair criticism? >> that she did beg for additional securi
-up. she knew all the time the cia information that was given to her. >> reporter: senators graham, mccain and ayotte tellingers after yesterday's meeting that the information let them more disturbed and not reassured about rice's benghazi comments that which portrayed the a tack as a demonstration that spun out of control. cia director mike morrell with rice for the meetings initially told her the cia references to dropped in the talking points at the request of the fbi because the bureau did not want to compromise a ongoing criminal investigation. later cia officials called back to correct the record that in fact it was the agency was responsible. there was never any intention to mislead on benghazi rice said in a written statement, the talking points provided by the intelligence community and initial assessment were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. that the white house previousing spokesman jay carney tried to put the focus on the current investigation and not ambassador rice's people are moe interested in talking points for a sunday sho
by the director of the cia, i think it wouldn't be fair to disqualify her based on what she said. >> ambassador rice released this statement after meeting with the republican senators. while we certainly wish we had >> ambassador rice released this statement after meeting with the republican senators. joining me now, msnbc's karen finney and howard fineman. howard, what is your understanding of how these meetings actually went today? we got a very little by way of actual reports on what went on there. you've got lindsey graham trying to say something happened in this meeting to make the situation worse. what could that have been? >> well, from talking to a top official in the white house and to senator mccain, behind closed doors, the meeting wasn't as contentious as those statements after ward made it sound. at least as regard to ambassador rice. i think both sides agree that there are legitimate questions to be asked about the timeline of what happened in benghazi. about the state of knowledge at the time, about security protections and so forth, but as far as holding ambassador rice personal
. then they put out a statement the essence of it seems to be that acting c.i.a. director michael morrell said that the talking points have been changed by the fbi because of an on-going criminal investigation. and they were very troubled by this because of course we had already been told it was the dni that changed them. then they got a call at 4:00 p.m. from the c.i.a., actually, no it wasn't. it was us. we changed them. so then they're going what the bleep is going on? they can't get their act straight. and yet the focus of their rage when they came out from the meeting was susan rice, not michael morrell. >> bill: right. so susan rice, first of all not responsible for security at consulates or embassies around the country. number two, she's not the one who wrote those intelligence reports or provided the material for the intelligence report that she -- the findings of which she simply read or reported on. if the anger should be directed toward anybody it should be against the c.i.a. or the fbi or whoever did not have all o
director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions i have and one of the questions that i didn't feel i got a satisfactory answer to, which is if you knew that even though the classified version, obviously, had references to al qaeda in it being involved or individuals with ties to al qaeda involved in it, how could you not know when you go on every sunday show and not include that fact that it would leave a very different impression to the american people, pa
to get answers from the fbi and the cia and the intelligence committee and all of those other things, we have to go through susan rice. before we can work on preventing this from happening again, we have to agree on what exactly happened. and we don't fully know and we need to find out. >> i appreciate a lot of your position. if this was really about consulate security and what happened that day for a lot of these people, i would find that extremely valid. these are important questions. nobody wants this to happen again. it is completely a tragedy. but what we have is talking point police attacking susan rice because of what she said on the shows. look. they -- all these senators know the intelligence that she got. they know she was briefed by the intelligence community to say this. they know there's no duplicity. she was told what to say and whatnot to say. there's this bizarre kabuki theaters a foekt this. if it's above politics, it's attacking obama and the intelligence community. susan rice is not the doorway in to that. obama who stood up and said i'm where the buck stops. attack me
that. then they call back later and say, forget that, it was us, it was the cia. >> it's like the keystone cops. in the wizard of oz goes the scarecrow goes like this. which way did it go. each pointing in another direction. whether it's the keystone cops and it's shear incompetence, or something else is going on here to me as an american it's not -- we don't even knotphao*eub was e f.b.i. wasn't on site for three weeks. megyn: great to see you. dick durbin will talk about income dave repbgsin differentials in this country. we'll talk about it. megyn: some are calling it the scariest prank ever but it also may be the funnist. however, in between the laughs and the gasps are horror there is a real question about whether this brazilian tv show crossed a legal line with its ghost in an elevator prank. watch. ♪ [screaming] [laughter] megyn: everyone here thinks it's funny, but the question is, is it legal? there could be potential liability here, and we will debate it in today's "kelly's court," i'm taking your tweets on it, follow me@megyn kelly in between now and the court. th
that caused a problem. it was the acting cia director michael murrell who went with her to this meeting with the three republican senators, told them that it was actually the fbi that changed the unclassified talking points that susan rice used and then really made them mad about that. then hours later called back and said, never mind. we were wrong. so they didn't even -- he didn't even have his facts right in that meeting, which really adds fuel to the fire here. >> okay. and not picking on susan rice but i have to lay this by you. i mean, isn't it part rice's personality the editor at large of foreign policy magazine describes rice this way, quote, she's not easy. i'm not sure i'd want to take her on a picnic with my family, but if the president wants her to be secretary of state, she'll work hard. this is from a reuters article. so is it in part that senators aren't used to dealing with a person -- i mean, susan rice just comes out and kind of says things. she's blunt. she's not charming, warm, etcetera. >> or maybe some might say diplomatic which you need for the role of secretary
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)